Ordinance committee forwards revised multifamily zoning to Council after 74‑foot tweak; special‑permit lowering fails

The Cambridge Ordinance Committee on Tuesday moved the city’s revised multifamily zoning petition closer to a full City Council vote, approving staff-substituted text for both parts of the proposal and adopting a narrowly scoped amendment to raise the inclusionary-height cap to 74 feet.

The committee began by voting, on roll call, to substitute the Community Development Department’s updated text for Part 1 and then Part 2 of the petition; both substitutions passed unanimously. After a CDD presentation on the petition’s goals and development‑capacity modeling, committee members debated setbacks, inclusionary triggers and minimum lot-size provisions before considering two floor amendments.

Why it matters: CDD told the committee the petition aims to reduce exclusionary limits in existing zoning and enable more multifamily housing across Cambridge while preserving the Affordable Housing Overlay’s incentives. Staff projected that modest differences in story limits (3 versus 4) produce relatively small changes in citywide market-unit totals but that adding a 5,000‑square‑foot minimum lot-size for six‑story projects reduces projected market supply by several hundred units by 2040.

CDD assistant manager Iram Faru introduced the team and the responsive memo; Jeff Roberts (CDD) described the process and timeline, saying the committee was approaching the statutory deadline for final action. Melissa Peters (CDD) summarized the modeling and explained a key assumption: the model treats ‘‘inclusionary’’ as kicking in only when a redevelopment yields at least 14 units, which is why the report focuses on net‑new unit counts rather than total building counts.

Committee debate focused on protections for existing buildings and neighbors. Councilor Azim said the slides were “hard to see” because some scenarios reduce projected units, warning that the 5,000‑square‑foot minimum could cost the city roughly 1,500 potential units compared with earlier assumptions. Councilor Toner pressed staff on climate and ‘‘teardown’’ effects and on protecting rooftop solar; CDD and the solicitor said new development is subject to stricter green‑building rules and that protecting solar access by imposing easements through state code carries legal risk. The solicitor advised against adopting a Section 9(b) easement‑by‑permit approach, saying it would likely be vulnerable to challenge.

On the floor, Councilor Azim offered a narrowly written amendment to raise the inclusionary‑residency‑1 height to 74 feet (to avoid triggering higher Affordable Housing Overlay thresholds at the current 75‑foot breakpoint). CDD recommended taking only the 74‑foot change that night and returning later with precise language for any contextual setback exceptions. The committee approved the 74‑foot change by unanimous roll call.

Councilor Toner then moved to lower the special‑permit project‑review threshold from 75,000 to 50,000 square feet to preserve more discretionary review; supporters said the change would increase neighborhood input. Opponents said a lower threshold would remove many projects from an as‑of‑right pathway and would significantly reduce housing and affordable‑unit totals. The Toner amendment failed on roll call, 2–7.

After final discussion about form‑based approaches, design review and phasing, the committee voted to forward the amended Parts 1 and 2 to the full City Council with favorable recommendations for a second reading (each motion carried 8–1, with Councilor Zuzi the lone no vote). The CDD response memo and related materials were also placed on file, 8–1.

The next step: the petition will appear on the full City Council agenda for a second reading and public comment; the committee’s votes send the amended text to that body for further consideration.

Votes at a glance

- Substitute CDD text for Multifamily Zoning Petition Part 1: passed by roll call, 9–0 (substitution approved). - Substitute CDD text for Multifamily Zoning Petition Part 2: passed by roll call, 9–0 (substitution approved). - Amendment (Councilor Azim): raise inclusionary-residency-1 height to 74 feet — passed by roll call, 9–0. - Amendment (Councilor Toner): require special‑permit review threshold = 50,000 sq ft (was 75,000) — failed by roll call, 2–7. - Forward Part 1 to City Council with favorable recommendation (second reading): passed by roll call, 8–1 (Councilor Zuzi no). - Forward Part 2 to City Council with favorable recommendation (second reading): passed by roll call, 8–1 (Councilor Zuzi no).

What staff said: Roberts described the changes as part of a multistep process with meetings, Planning Board input and outreach. Peters said the model’s key output — net‑new unit projections by 2030 and 2040 — depends on parcel‑size assumptions, thresholds for inclusionary zoning and phasing assumptions in CDD’s development log.

What the opponents said: Councilor Zuzi and others warned the proposal risks incentivizing teardowns and displacement in some neighborhoods and urged additional protections or a phased, form‑based approach if the council moves ahead.

What happens next: The full City Council will consider the amended petition at its next available meeting; public comment will be allowed at that hearing. The committee indicated staff would return with refined text for any contextual setback exceptions and with further clarifications of modeling totals if requested.

Sources: Transcript of the Cambridge Ordinance Committee meeting and CDD presentation materials provided to the committee.